P.SHANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.808/2018/Vu1, dtd. 5/11/2019, quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent herein to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Panchayat Secretary of Matthakarai Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband passed away on 3/6/2014 leaving behind the petitioner and two children. The petitioner has completed 10th Standard during the year 1999 and she has also completed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course and the same have been registered before the District Employment Office, Madurai. She has also possessed priority category as Destitute Widow and the same has also been registered in the Employment Registered Office with the seniority, dtd. 26/10/2015. In the said circumstances, the third respondent has published a Notification calling for application to fill up the post of Village Panchayat Secretary, dtd. 27/3/2018 for Matthakarai Village for the rotation of BC Women other than Muslims category. As per the said Notification, the petitioner applied for the said post along with her Educational Qualification, Nativity Certificate, Community Certificate and Priority Certificate as Destitute Widow and Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. On satisfying with the same, the third respondent called the petitioner for interview vide proceedings, dtd. 5/2/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner attended the interview on 14/2/2019 and produced all documents before the Committee. However, without considering the petitioner's candidature and qualification, the fourth respondent was selected. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Destitute Widow and daughter of Ex-Serviceman and she also obtained an Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. Apart from that, she has also completed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course and the age of the petitioner is 34 years, whereas, the age of the fourth respondent is only 20 years. At the time of interview, the fourth respondent did not possess the other qualifications which were possessed by the petitioner. Hence, the appointment of the fourth respondent is not sustainable and arbitrary and accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.